Originally posted by EnlightenUp
I will share some thoughts on how collective consciousness is collectively used to isolate the individual which may explain the resistance. Perhaps
my actual feelings about a theory itself are in between the lines as why would I use it if I didn't have a favorable bias?
Interesting choice of words...favourable to whom? And, how would you use it? Out of curiousity.
Originally posted by EnlightenUp
I think that the term "collective" used in the context of humanity has become somewhat of a perjorative given the associations with mob behavior or
oppressive regimes. The past century especially has given people pause to declare themselves any part of a perceived "hive mind", whether it be
because of atrocities committed by groups or because of glorification of the individual self. A collective is seen a structure in which we lose our
prized individuality and perhaps even our human rights.
I think the mistake that people make is assuming that mob behaviour is in any way connected to the collective consciousness. I suppose Star Trek has
in some ways further promoted this idea with the Borg, as a homogenised, single brained organism. That is not how I would describe it or perceive it.
I would in many ways present the hypothese that it is in fact the opposite, and that most certainly, that it is only by leaving the 'Hive mind'
that you can access the collective consciousness. If you think of the collective as being able to perceive the feelings or emotions, or rather the
suffering of others, then war would only be possible by switching it off.
Originally posted by EnlightenUp
With the animal kingdom, identification of their kind as something other than human and something separate from, does not trigger the defense
mechanisms required to maintain the view in which we have been indoctrinated. We may freely speak of collectives within that sphere, without
triggering our conditioned responses.
I favour the Triune Brain model, it is not everyone's cup of tea, but I find that it presents a highly valid basis upon which to group human
behaviours in terms of function and the evolutionary time line. The majority of primates do not demonstrate 'herding', 'swarming' or seasonal
migratory patterns. They live in relatively small social groups and they bond through sensual expression; touch, language, sex etc. They do not need
to communicate 'extra sensorially'. This suggests that we, as primates, stopped using our ‘collective’ perceptions in favour of more
evolutionary advanced methods of communication prior to developing a spoken (rather than non-verbal or guttural) language. The more complex the brain
development, evolutionary, the less complex, in terms of numbers and relationships, the group becomes. The ability to be perceived and to perceive
‘others’ would become more and more of a threat depending upon the level of competition. It is competition that necessitates a disconnection from
the collective.
Originally posted by EnlightenUp
In fact, I will go so far as to say it helps us justify and alleviate guilt about our maltreatment of other terrestrial species, the only salient
aspect of their nature being that of their species, not the individual organisms.
I agree. I also think that the constant seeking for an external enemy fits in with this, those that crave an alien enemy, or even the fear of the
all-seeing-all-controlling elite fall into not only a strategy for self-victimisation in preference to self-governance, but also into a marketing
campaign to keep us from accepting responsibility and therefore keeping us buying whatever it is that is being sold to us (we care not what, we like
to be told what we should have). If we are victims, it justifies our victimisation of others and other life. As long as someone or something is on
the bottom the status quo is maintained. There is seemingly a constant shuffling to ensure that someone is on the bottom. That is the conditioning,
we must always know that there is something worse or something better. What I find though, more and more, is that the notion that in order to get
‘up there’, you have to ‘cut corners’ is promoted. To get to the top you have to be bad seems to be the rule rather than the exception in the
mainstream. It is good to be bad. I wonder if it can all be traced back to who shot JR, we shouldn’t have cared, one less bad guy, but the whole
world did.
Originally posted by EnlightenUp
We can sleep comfortably knowing that they are different and do not share any similar individual experiences. Especially important is to discount
their individual suffering.
This is what I mean about how when you realise the ‘collective’ you actually remove yourself from the ‘hive’. The hive is single minded, the
collective is many minds and the realisation of
all suffering. The switching of awareness from a single focused reality, to an awareness of
all reality.
Originally posted by EnlightenUp
Industrialization combined with a Protestant work ethic served to force people to cut ties with community and force them into large cities. With
minimal support from others, they could be exploited to work their lives away in factories, with minimal pay, no social mobility and no time for
liesurly activities. Conditioning the worker this way is important in that any will to serve another in an altruistic gesture is broken, to make him
believe that to give is to take away from one's self. With the support system cut off, you can manipulate the people by threatening their livelyhoods
if they do not cooperate. They cannot as easily object to their conditions since there is no safety net on which to depend. Note that I am not
necessarily discussing the availablity of welfare programs or transfer payments but also that of maintaining a circle of others who are there when you
need them and will happily assist you in less bountiful times. If an individual has that support, they can pick and choose the means of their survival
more freely, for whom they work and just what they are willing to do in that line of work.
I agree again. The Protestant Work Ethic is and was a major factor in our movement into Imperialism. It not only created a compliant working class,
it also created a benevolent middle-class who created establishments of care and welfare which although in the long term it led to a dependency of
survival on state or organisations, in the short term, it allowed Britain to dedicate funds to expansion. The Protestant Work Ethic, to the
empirically ambitious nation, was a, literal, god send. The British, had under Elizabeth First learnt that taking a flexible stance,
denominationally, was better for trade. The Anglicans justified the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade with the Protestant Work Ethic. It was essential to
enslave them for their salvation. The British only adopted Protestantism in order to gain a trade treaty with the Lutheran Prussians. The Prussian
were our protection in Europe, allowing us to focus on expansion into the Indies and to develop our technological superiority (however short
lived…collective karma should always be a consideration). We adopted the Book of Common Prayer to appease their fears that we were too
‘Catholic’, which in fact we were. At the top at least. It is always a little too clear in British history. Religion was very much a tool of
the English, geo-politically speaking. Still is.
Originally posted by EnlightenUp
Additionally, it is not to say that Protestantism itself is a necessary ingredient, just the view that individual material success is more important
than strong community bonds along with the idea that one must outcompete another to ensure their own survival, which creating a perception of scarcity
helps to reinforce.
I do think it is necessary, Protestantism, as a phase at least. I wonder at how much though is engineering, and how much is ‘natural’, a process
or
phase that we have to pass through in our social evolution. I don’t see how we could have reached this point without it. Without the
Protestant Work Ethic in application in Britain, especially in it’s benevolent extremism in Quakerism, the Industrial Revolution couldn’t have
happened. However, it can also be argued that without slavery it wouldn’t have happened either (the industrial revolution that is). Is it
Protestantism or the need to exploit, or does one justify the other? It can send a girl cross-eyed. Something in our nature that requires someone to
be on top and someone at the bottom. Or so it seems.
Originally posted by EnlightenUp
Keep in mind that the ones that revered the bees were the ones that could also be considered the elite ruling class. They knew better about the
interdependencies and connectedness regardless of the lies they promulgated to those that served them. To an extent, they believed their own lies if
they needed to exhalt themselves so far above the peons. The beehive could be looked at as a symbol of hoarding the precious gold from those outside
the more priviliged community. Eventually though, the badgers outside get hungry, adapt, become immune to the stings and will raid the hive.
I am currently reading a book on the barbarisation of warfare on the Eastern front 1941-45 (and it’s wider implications). There is a fascinating
chapter on the ‘media’ that the front line soldier was exposed to, even after a day fighting what is still one of the bloodiest wars ever fought,
the German soldier would watch films supplied by the Ministry of Propaganda for ‘Ideological indoctrination’. The ‘cinema’ would travel from
unit to unit by van. Additionally, there were radio receiver vans, newspapers, magazines and leaflets. They were completely immersed, as were those
back home in Germany, in the ideology of National Socialism, there was no room for the individual perception. I think that this in some ways confirms
my own perception that the collective is an act of free will and therefore once gained needs no effort to maintain connectivity, quite the reverse in
fact, and that the hive is purely a man made construct, and requires therefore constant tending.
But, that is what TV is for, and why I very seldom partake of it.
Originally posted by EnlightenUp
The scientific community, largely being raised within the masses and exposed to the societal, or even religious conditioning, will fall prey to the
now endemic cultural suggestions. They must serve to expand knowledge, rather than emphasizing individual recognition. It may be against the interest
of those in power, who wish to preserve the old ways, to discourage those in positions of intellectual authority from helping us restore our proper
awareness. Much like the lowly worker, they may be kept in line by threatening their means of livelyhood. Really, they are just lowly workers as well.
Agreed. Very much so. The promotion of occupational and educational specialisation are to me indicative of this attitude. Keeping the masses in
little boxes to prevent ecumenical (and dissenting) thought.
Originally posted by EnlightenUp
The perception of separateness and complete self-reliance is an unnatural one, one used for control by fear. It is a shared delusion. Reject it.
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I suppose if I comment on this, I will comment over there in context. If you wouldn't mind, drop me into the thread with a link at the correct point;
the posts are quite lengthy. I had a peep and saw a lecture in progress on U.S. Constitutional law.
Lazy and I are plotting to take over the world (in our own minds only at present, or in my mind at least, but it’s a start…) and we both have a
lot to say on the subject it seems, it is a lengthy discussion and goes pretty much around every house on the block.
No need to comment but I do think you might find it interesting. It is right at the bottom of the last post…but I will add a link once I’ve
posted this.
Why did you refer to it as hurting your eyes? 
